ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-2014 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 169247, June 02, 2014 - MA. CONSOLACION M. NAHAS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE­ PERSONNEL EMPLOYMENT AND TECHNICAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY, Petitioner, v. JUANITA L. OLARTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191906, June 02, 2014 - JOSELITO MA. P. JACINTO (FORMERLY PRESIDENT OFF. JACINTO GROUP, INC.), Petitioner, v. EDGARDO* GUMARU, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192302, June 04, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI–MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, Petitioner, v. RAFAEL A. MANALO, GRACE M. OLIVA, AND FREIDA Z. RIVERA–YAP, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199871, June 02, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. WILFREDO SOLANO, JR.Y GECITA, Accused–Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P–13–3132 (Formerly A.M. No. 12–3–54–RTC), June 04, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. SARAH P. AMPONG, COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ALABEL, SARANGANI PROVINCE, BRANCH 38, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185092, June 04, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CORAZON C. SESE AND FE C. SESE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189171, June 03, 2014 - EDILBERTO L. BARCELONA, Petitioner, v. DAN JOEL LIM AND RICHARD TAN, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-2388-MTJ), June 02, 2014 - GERSHON N. DULANG, Complainant, v. JUDGE MARY JOCYLEN1 G. REGENCIA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), ASTURIAS-BALAMBAN, CEBU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203696, June 02, 2014 - JESSE PHILIP B. EIJANSANTOS, Petitioner, v. SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE 156, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ALLAN U. VENTURA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197303, June 04, 2014 - APQ SHIPMANAGEMENT CO., LTD., AND APQ CREW MANAGEMENT USA, INC., Petitioner, v. ANGELITO L. CASEÑAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197525, June 04, 2014 - VISAYAS GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199096, June 02, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FRED TRAIGO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201861, June 02, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. VALENTIN SABAL Y PARBA, JR., Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 9881 (Formerly CBD 10-2607), June 04, 2014 - ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA, Petitioner, v. ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205065, June 04, 2014 - VERGEL PAULINO AND CIREMIA PAULINO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 207533 - SPOUSES DR. VERGEL L. PAULINO & DR. CIREMIA G. PAULINO, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194872, June 09, 2014 - SAHAR INTERNATIONAL TRADING, INC., Petitioner, v. WARNER LAMBERT CO., LLC AND PFIZER, INC. (PHILIPPINES), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188710, June 02, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATIMANAY WATAMAMA A.K.A. AKMAD SALIPADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, TENG MIDTIMBANG (AT LARGE), Accused.

  • G.R. No. 194066, June 04, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. FRANKLIN M. MILLADO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201858, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JENNY LIKIRAN ALIAS “LOLOY”, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208761, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO BARAGA Y ARCILLA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183239, June 02, 2014 - GREGORIO DE LEON, DOING BUSINESS AS G.D.L. MARKETING, Petitioner, v. HERCULES AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND/OR JESUS CHUA AND RUMI RUNGIS MILK., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202303, June 04, 2014 - GERARDO R. VILLASEÑOR AND RODEL A. MESA, Petitioner, v. OMBUDSMAN AND HON. HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY MAYOR, QUEZON CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197192, June 04, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202414, June 04, 2014 - JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner, v. FELICIDAD GONZALEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179535, June 09, 2014 - JOSE ESPINELI A.K.A. DANILO ESPINELI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190080, June 11, 2014 - GOLDEN VALLEY EXPLORATION, INC., Petitioner, v. PINKIAN MINING COMPANY AND COPPER VALLEY, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 177592, June 09, 2014 - AVELINO S. ALILIN, TEODORO CALESA, CHARLIE HINDANG, EUTIQUIO GINDANG, ALLAN SUNGAHID, MAXIMO LEE, CARPIO, CHAIRPERSON, JOSE G. MORATO, REX GABILAN, AND EUGEMA L. LAURENTE, Petitioners, v. PETRON CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205664, June 09, 2014 - DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR TERESITA DOMALANTA, Petitioner, v. MARIANO TULIAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194818, June 09, 2014 - CHARLES BUMAGAT, JULIAN BACUDIO, ROSARIO PADRE, SPOUSES ROGELIO AND ZOSIMA PADRE, AND FELIPE DOMINCIL, Petitioner, v. REGALADO ARRIBAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191516, June 04, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCA, GERONIMO AND CRISPIN, ALL SURNAMED SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187769, June 04, 2014 - ALVIN PATRIMONIO, Petitioner, v. NAPOLEON GUTIERREZ AND OCTAVIO MARASIGAN III, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183202, June 02, 2014 - ALBERTO ALMOJUELA Y VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179669, June 04, 2014 - SR METALS, INC., SAN R MINING AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND GALEO EQUIPMENT AND MINING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ANGELO T. REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187456, June 02, 2014 - ALABANG CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT, Petitioner, v. ALABANG HILLS VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND RAFAEL TINIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189970, June 02, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO S. RANESES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196276, June 04, 2014 - TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 171286, June 02, 2014 - DOLORES CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. DOMINADOR ORTEGA, SR. AND JAMES SILOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200884, June 04, 2014 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MILDRED SALVATIERRA Y MATUCO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 199211, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JERIC FERNANDEZ Y JAURIGUE, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207525, June 10, 2014 - BONIFACIO PIEDAD, REPRESENTED BY MARIA INSPIRACION PIEDAD-DANAO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTORIO GURIEZA AND EMETERIA M. GURIEZA , Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10378, June 09, 2014 - JOSE FRANCISCO T. BAENS, Complainant, v. ATTY. JONATHAN T. SEMPIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200402, June 18, 2014 - PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioner, v. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR PHILIPPINE ESTATE CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 208127 - STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AS SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE ESTATE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (FORMERLY ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST), AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197591, June 18, 2014 - TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200920, June 09, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERUSALEM ESTEBAN Y BALLESTEROS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 199027, June 09, 2014 - THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF SAGUIRAN, LANAO DEL SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184148, June 09, 2014 - NORA B. CALALANG-PARULAN AND ELVIRA B. CALALANG, Petitioners, v. ROSARIO CALALANG-GARCIA, LEONORA CALALANG-SABILE, AND CARLITO S. CALALANG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189440, June 18, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204029, June 04, 2014 - AVELINA ABARIENTOS REBUSQUILLO [SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, EXCEPT EMELINDA R. GUALVEZ] AND SALVADOR A. OROSCO, Petitioners, v. SPS. DOMINGO AND EMELINDA REBUSQUILLO GUALVEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205202, June 09, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NENITA GAMATA Y VALDEZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G. R. No. 168903, June 18, 2014 - MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S. MADRIGAL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNDERSECRETARY MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, CELESTINO M. PALMA III, AND HELEN T. CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182839, June 02, 2014 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. JOSE GARCIA AND CHILDREN NORA GARCIA, JOSE GARCIA, JR., BOBBY GARCIA AND JIMMY GARCIA AND HEIRS OF ROGELIO GARCIA NAMELY: CELEDONIO GARCIA, DANILO GARCIA, ELSA GARCIA, FERMIN GARCIA, HEHERSON GARCIA, GREGORIO GARCIA, IMELDA GARCIA AND JANE GARCIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207888, June 09, 2014 - DIONARTO Q. NOBLEJAS, Petitioner, v. ITALIAN MARITIME ACADEMY PHILS., INC., CAPT. NICOLO S. TERREI, RACELI B. FERREZ AND MA. TERESA R. MENDOZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207266, June 25, 2014 - HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO, REPRESENTED BY REMEDIOS CHAN, Petitioners, v. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204626, June 09, 2014 - PAUL P. GABRIEL, JR., IRENEO C. CALWAG, THOMAS L. TINGGA-AN, AND THE HEIRS OF JULIET B. PULKERA, Petitioners, v. CARMELING CRISOLOGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205278, June 11, 2014 - PHILIPPINE SPRING WATER RESOURCES INC. /DANILO Y. LUA , Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND JUVENSTEIN B. MAHILUM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185432, June 04, 2014 - MIRAMAR FISH COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185964, June 16, 2014 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, v. FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194234, June 18, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAYSON CRUZ Y TECSON, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES FINANCE CENTER (AFPFC), Petitioner, v. DAISY R. YAHON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193421, June 04, 2014 - MCMER CORPORATION, INC., MACARIO D. ROQUE, JR. AND CECILIA R. ALVESTIR, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND FELICIANO C. LIBUNAO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192912, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMOCRITO PARAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207513, June 16, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRICCIO BACULANTA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 197005, June 04, 2014 - PRINCESS JOY PLACEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. GERMAN A. BINALLA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014 - VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant, v. ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB AND JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176652, June 04, 2014 - AUGUSTO C. SOLIMAN, Petitioner, v. JUANITO C. FERNANDEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER OF SMC PNEUMATICS (PHILS.), INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197539, June 02, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGELITA I. DAUD, HANELITA M. GALLEMIT AND RODERICK GALLEMIT Y TOLENTINO, ACCUSED.[BR][BR]RODERICK GALLEMIT Y TOLENTINO, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 7676, June 10, 2014 - AMADO T. DIZON, Complainant, v. ATTY. NORLITA DE TAZA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-12-2332 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3393-RTJ), June 25, 2014 - EFREN T. UY, NELIA B. LEE, RODOLFO L. MENES AND QUINCIANO H. LUI, Complainants, v. JUDGE ALAN L. FLORES, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TUBOD, LANAO DEL NORTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207990, June 09, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELIAS BUENVINOTO Y PAGLINAWAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208719, June 09, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGER RINGOR UMAWID, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 192820, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 192074, June 10, 2014 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR MELQUIADES A. ROBLES, Petitioner, v. AURORA A. SALVAÑA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180416, June 02, 2014 - ADERITO Z. YUJUICO AND BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA, Petitioners, v. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO AND ERIC C. PILAPIL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209785, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 179914, June 16, 2014 - SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON, Petitioners, v. ATTY. REY FERDINAND GARAY AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.; A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000 - ATTY. REY FERDINAND T. GARAY, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO S. VENADAS, SR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192011, June 30, 2014 - LIBCAP MARKETING CORP., JOHANNA J. CELIZ, AND MA. LUCIA G. MONDRAGON, Petitioners, v. LANNY JEAN B. BAQUIAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200793, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MILAN ROXAS Y AGUILUZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 194560, June 11, 2014 - NESTOR T. GADRINAB, Petitioner, v. NORA T. SALAMANCA, ANTONIO TALAO, AND ELENA LOPEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199283, June 09, 2014 - JULIET VITUG MADARANG AND ROMEO BARTOLOME, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT AND ACTING IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES, RODOLFO AND RUBY BARTOLOME, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JESUS D. MORALES AND CAROLINA N. MORALES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-13-3123, June 10, 2014 - ALBERTO VALDEZ, Complainant, v. DESIDERIO W. MACUSI, JR., SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, TABUK, KALINGA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9317 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3615), June 04, 2014 - ADELIA V. QUIACHON, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR A. RAMOS, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014 - EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, AND MELINDA D. SIOTING, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-13-2356 [Formerly OCA No. IPI-11-3701-RTJ], June 09, 2014 - ARGEL D. HERNANDEZ, Complainant, v. JUDGE VICTOR C. GELLA, PRESIDING JUDGE, CLARINCE B. JINTALAN, LEGAL RESEARCHER, AND ROWENA B. JINTALAN, SHERIFF IV, ALL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52, SORSOGON CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200148, June 04, 2014 - RAMON A. SYHUNLIONG, Petitioner, v. TERESITA D. RIVERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207664, June 25, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GIL SALVIDAR Y GARLAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183589, June 25, 2014 - CHARLIE LIM (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) AND LILIA SALANGUIT, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES DANILO LIGON AND GENEROSA VITUG-LIGON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180147, June 04, 2014 - SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL.,1 Respondents.; G.R. No. 180148 - ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. No. 180149 - SARA LEE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. No. 180150 - CESAR C. CRUZ, Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. No. 180319 - FASHION ACCESSORIES PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. No. 180685 - EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Petitioners, v. NLRC, ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC., FASHION ACCESSORIES PHILS., INC., SARA LEE CORPORATION, SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC., COLLIN BEAL AND ATTY. CESAR C. CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193478, June 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO P. FERNANDEZ, NELSON E. TOBIAS, AND FRANK R. BAAY, ACCUSED, NELSON E. TOBIAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • B.M. No. 2713, June 10, 2014 - ATTY. AILEEN R. MAGLANA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE VICENTE R. OPINION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207176, June 18, 2014 - SPOUSES VICTOR AND EDNA BINUA, Petitioners, v. LUCIA P. ONG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014 - ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SANNAEDLE CO., LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181459, June 09, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200491, June 09, 2014 - KASAMAKA-CANLUBANG, INC., REPRESENTED BY PABLITO M. EGILDO, Petitioner, v. LAGUNA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 166018, June 04, 2014 - THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED-PHILIPPINE BRANCHES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 167728 - THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED-PHILIPPINE BRANCHES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3554-RTJ], June 10, 2014 - EMILIE SISON-BARIAS, Complainant, v. JUDGE MARINO E. RUBIA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCH 24, BIÑAN, LAGUNA AND EILEEN A. PECAÑA, DATA ENCODER II, RTC, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187843, June 09, 2014 - CAPITOL SAWMILL CORPORATION AND COLUMBIA WOOD INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. CONCEPCION CHUA GAW, ANGELO CHUA GAW, JOHN BARRY CHUA GAW, LEONARD BRANDON CHUA GAW AND JULITA C. CHUA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196950, June 18, 2014 - HELEN E. CABLING, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND ARIEL CABLING, Petitioner, v. JOSELIN TAN LUMAPAS, AS REPRESENTED BY NORY ABELLANES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014 - ARCO PULP AND PAPER CO., INC. AND CANDIDA A. SANTOS, Petitioners, v. DAN T. LIM, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF QUALITY PAPERS & PLASTIC PRODUCTS ENTERPRISES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190253, June 11, 2014 - JUAN TRAJANO A.K.A. JOHNNY TRAJANO, Petitioner, v. UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014 - WILLIAM CO A.K.A. XU QUING HE, Petitioner, v. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS, REPRESENTED BY ELIZABETH UY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208678, June 16, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFERSON WARRINER Y NICDAO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 186657, June 11, 2014 - DOMINGA B. QUITO, Petitioner, v. STOP & SAVE CORPORATION, AS REPRESENTED BY GREGORY DAVID DICKENSON, AS ITS CHAIRMAN, AND JULIETA BUAN-DICKENSON, AS ITS PRESIDENT, ROBERTO BUAN, HENRY CO, ANGELINA LUMOTAN, RODEL PINEDA AND ROSE CALMA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014 - NOEL A. LASANAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195598, June 25, 2014 - TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., TEEKAY SHIPPING LIMITED AND ALEX VERCHEZ, Petitioners, v. EXEQUIEL O. JARIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190177, June 11, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 9976 [Formerly CBD Case No. 09-2539], June 25, 2014 - ALMIRA C. FORONDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE L. ALVAREZ, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014 - DR. JOEL C. MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195668, June 25, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MA. HARLETA VELASCO Y BRIONES, MARICAR B. INOVERO, MARISSA DIALA, AND BERNA M. PAULINO, Accused, MARICAR B. INOVERO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207774, June 30, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS ALHAMBRA Y MASING, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183448, June 30, 2014 - SPOUSES DOMINADOR PERALTA AND OFELIA PERALTA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF BERNARDINA ABALON, REPRESENTED BY MANSUETO ABALON, Respondents.; G. R. No. 183464 - HEIRS OF BERNARDINA ABALON, REPRESENTED BY MANSUETO ABALON, Petitioners, v. MARISSA ANDAL, LEONIL ANDAL, ARNEL ANDAL, SPOUSES DOMINDOR PERALTA AND OFELIA PERALTA, AND HEIRS OF RESTITUTO RELLAMA, REPRESENTED BY HIS CHILDREN ALEX, IMMANUEL, JULIUS AND SYLVIA, ALL SURNAMED RELLAMA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 177425, June 18, 2014 - ALONZO GIPA, IMELDA MAROLLANO, JUANITO LUDOVICE, VIRGILIO GOJIT, DEMAR BITANGCOR, FELIPE MONTALBAN AND DAISY M. PLACER, Petitioners, v. SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUTE AS REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT FOR OPERATIONS AND CORPORATE SECRETARY, RUBEN G. ASUNCION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210252, June 25, 2014 - VILMA QUINTOS, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FIDEL I. QUINTOS, JR.; FLORENCIA I. DANCEL, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FLOVY I. DANCEL; AND CATALINO L. IBARRA, Petitioners, v. PELAGIA I. NICOLAS, NOLI L. IBARRA, SANTIAGO L. IBARRA, PEDRO L. IBARRA, DAVID L. IBARRA, GILBERTO L. IBARRA, HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. IBARRA, NAMELY CONCHITA R., IBARRA, APOLONIO IBARRA, AND NARCISO IBARRA, AND THE SPOUSES RECTO CANDELARIO AND ROSEMARIE CANDELARIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206716, June 18, 2014 - RUBEN C. JORDAN, Petitioner, v. GRANDEUR SECURITY & SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208678, June 16, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFERSON WARRINER Y NICDAO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 163055, June 11, 2014 - THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FOR THE PORT OF ILOILO, Petitioners, v. NEW FRONTIER SUGAR CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202996, June 18, 2014 - MARLO A. DEOFERIO, Petitioner, v. INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR MIKE WENTLING, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 156208, June 30, 2014 - NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION (NPC DAMA), represented by its President ROGER S. SAN JUAN, SR., NPC EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION (NEWU) - NORTHERN LUZON, REGIONAL CENTER, represented by its Regional President JIMMY D. SALMAN, in their own individual capacities and in behalf of the members of the associations and all affected officers and employees of National Power Corporation (NPC), ZOL D. MEDINA, NARCISO M. MAGANTE, VICENTE B. CIRIO, JR., and NECITAS B. CAMAMA, in their individual capacities as employees of National Power Corporation, Petitioners, v. THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC), NATIONAL POWER BOARD OF DIRECTORS (NPB), JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO as Chairman of the National Power Board of Directors (NPB), ROLANDO S. QUILALA, as President - Officer-in-charge/CEO of National Power Corporation and Member of National Power Board, and VINCENT S. PEREZ, JR., EMILIA T. BONCODIN, MARIUS P. CORPUS, RUBEN S. REINOSO, JR., GREGORY L. DOMINGO, NIEVES L. OSORIO and POWER SECTOR ASSETS and LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT (PSALM), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189532, June 11, 2014 - VIRGINIA S. DIO AND H.S. EQUITIES, LTD., Petitioners, v. SUBIC BAY MARINE EXPLORATORIUM, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIMOTHY DESMOND, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190620, June 18, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERMINIGILDO B. TABAYAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203332, June 18, 2014 - FLORENCIO LIBONGCOGON, FELIPE VILLAREAL AND ALFONSO CLAUDIO, Petitioners, v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207763, June 30, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO RONDINA, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-11-3020 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3525-P), June 25, 2014 - PRESIDING JUDGE JUAN GABRIEL HIZON ALANO, MARY ANNABELLE A. KATIPUNAN, SUZEE WONG JAMOTILLO, ANALIE DEL RIO BALITUNG, EDWINO JAYSON OLIVEROS AND ROBERTO BABAO DOÑO, Complainants, v. PADMA LATIP SAHI, COURT INTERPRETER I, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), MALUSO, BASILAN. Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014 - MARIANO C. MENDOZA AND ELVIRA LIM, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES LEONORA J. GOMEZ AND GABRIEL V. GOMEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDARIO CALANTIAO Y DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 173616, June 25, 2014 - AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO), Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (NINETEENTH DIVISION) AND BERNIE G. MIAQUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 164961, June 30, 2014 - HECTOR L. UY, Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA G. FULE; HEIRS OF THE LATE AMADO A. GARCIA, NAMELY: AIDA C. GARCIA, LOURDES G. SANTAYANA, AMANDO C. GARCIA, JR., MANUEL C. GARCIA, CARLOS C. GARCIA, AND CRISTINA G. MARALIT; HEIRS OF THE LATE GLORIA GARCIA ENCARNACION, NAMELY: MARVIC G. ENCARNACION, IBARRA G. ENCARNACION, MORETO G. ENCARNACION, JR., AND CARINA G. ENCARNACION; HEIRS OF THE LATE PABLO GARCIA, NAMELY: BERMEDIO GARCIA, CRISTETA GARCIA, NONORATO GARCIA, VICENTE GARCIA, PABLO GARCIA, JR., AND TERESITA GARCIA; HEIRS OF THE LATE ELISA G. HEMEDES, NAMELY: ROEL G. HEMEDES, ELISA G. HEMEDES, ROGELIO G. HEMEDES, ANDORA G. HEMEDES, AND FLORA G. HEMEDES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196228, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO BESMONTE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203086, June 11, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JOSE DALAN Y PALDINGAN, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208173, June 11, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLIVER A. BUCLAO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 162021, June 16, 2014 - MEGA MAGAZINE PUBLICATIONS, INC., JERRY TIU, AND SARITA V. YAP, Petitioners, v. MARGARET A. DEFENSOR, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 3452, June 23, 2014 - HENRY SAMONTE, Petitioner, v. ATTY. GINES ABELLANA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARRY MENDOZA Y ESTRADA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 205543, June 30, 2014 - SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160827, June 18, 2014 - NETLINK COMPUTER INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. ERIC DELMO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192861, June 30, 2014 - LINDA RANA, Petitioner, v. TERESITA LEE WONG, SPS. SHIRLEY LEE ONG AND RUBEN ANG ONG, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT WILSON UY, AND SPS. ROSARIO AND WILSON UY, Respondents.; G.R. No. 192862 - SPS. ROSARIO AND WILSON UY, WILSON UY AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF TERESITA LEE WONG, AND SPS. SHIRLEY LEE ONG AND RUBEN ANG ONG, Petitioners, v. SPS. REYNALDO AND LINDA RANA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE AGAPITO L. HONTANOSAS, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, CEBU CITY, SILVERIO BORBON, SPOUSES XERXES AND ERLINDA FACULTAD, AND XM FACULTAD & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 179669, June 04, 2014 - SR METALS, INC., SAN R MINING AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND GALEO EQUIPMENT AND MINING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ANGELO T. REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondent.

      G.R. No. 179669, June 04, 2014 - SR METALS, INC., SAN R MINING AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND GALEO EQUIPMENT AND MINING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ANGELO T. REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    G.R. No. 179669, June 04, 2014

    SR METALS, INC., SAN R MINING AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND GALEO EQUIPMENT AND MINING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ANGELO T. REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

    In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, SR Metals, Inc., SAN R Mining and Construction Corp., and Galeo Equipment and Mining Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as 'mini corporations') assail the Decision1 and Resolution2 dated July 4, 2007 and September 14 respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R SP No. 97127. The mining corporations fault the CA for (a) upholding the validity of the provision of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 18993 which limits the annual production/extraction of mineral ore in small-scale mining to 50,000 metric tons (MT) despite its being violative of the equal protection clause, and (b) adopting the Mines and Geosciences Bureau's (MGB) definition of 'ore,' which led the said court to conclude that the mining corporation had exceeded the aforesaid 50,000-MT limit.

    Factual Antecedents

    On March 9, 2006, each of the petitioners was awarded a 2-year Small-Scale Mining Permit4 (SSMP) by the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board of Agusan del Norte; they were allowed to extract Nickel and Cobalt (Ni-Co) in a 20-hectare mining site in Sitio Bugnang, Brgy. La Fraternidad, Tubay, Agusan del Norte. These permits were granted after the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Region XIII of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued on March 2, 2006 Environmental Compliance Certificates5 with a validity period of one year.

    The mining corporations’ ECCs contain a restriction that the amount of Ni-Co ore they are  allowed to extract annually should not exceed 50,000 MTs pursuant to Section 1 of PD 1899 which provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    Section 1. Small-scale mining refers to any single unit mining operation having an annual production of not more than 50,000 metric tons of ore x x x.

    Subsequently, however, Agusan del Norte Governor, Erlpe John M. Amante (Governor Amante),  questioned the quantity of ore that had been mined and shipped by the mining corporations. In reply, the mining corporations denied having exceeded the extraction limit of 50,000 MTs.6  They explained that an extracted mass contains only a limited amount/percentage of Ni-Co as the latter is lumped with gangue, i.e., the unwanted rocks and minerals. And it is only after the Ni-Co is separated from the gangue by means of a scientific process should amount of the Ni-Co be measured and considered as ‘ore.’ Excluding the gangue, the mining corporations pegged the volume of Ni-Co ore they had extracted from the time they start shipping the same in August 2006 until they filed their Petition before the CA in December 2006 at 1,699.66 MTs of Ni-Co ore only.7cralawred

    Having reservations with the mining corporations’ interpretation of the 50,000-MT restriction, Governor Amante sought the opinion of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the matter.

    Meanwhile, the EMB sent the mining corporations a Notice of Violation8 informing them that they had exceeded the allowed annual volume of 150,000 MTs combined production as their stockpile inventory of Nickeliferous ore had already  total 177,297 dry metric tons (DMT). This was based on the August 10, 2006 Inspection Report9 of the MGB Monitoring Team which conducted an inspection after the DENR received complaints of violations of small-scale mining laws and policies by the mining corporations.  A technical conference was thereafter held to hear the side of the mining corporations anent their alleged over-extraction.

    On November 26, 2004, DENR Secretary Angelo T. Reyes issued a Cease and Desist Order10 (CDO) against the mining corporations suspending their operations for their operations for the following reasons:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    1. The excess in 1) annual production of SR Metals, Inc., 2) maximum capitalization, and, 3) labor cost to equipment utilization of 1:1 is, by itself, a violation of existing laws.

    2. The ECCs issued in favor of San R Construction Corporation and Galeo Equipment Corporation have no legal basis and [are] therefore considered null and void from  the beginning.  Similarly, the small scale mining permits that were issued by reason of such ECCs are likewise null and void.11

    A few days later or on November 30, 2006, DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez replied to Governor Amante citing DOJ Opinion No. 74, Series of 2006.12  By comparing PD 1899 to Republic Act (RA) No. 7076,13 a subsequent law that likewise defines small-scale mining, the DOJ opined that Section 1 of PD 1899 is deemed to have been impliedly repealed by RA 7076 as nothing from the provisions of the latter law mentions anything pertaining to an annual production quota for small-scale mining.  It explained:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    The definition of “small scale mining” under R.A. No. 7076 is clear and categorical. Any mining activity that relies heavily on manual labor without use of explosives or heavy mining equipment falls under said definition. It does not mention any annual production quota or limitation.  On the contrary, Section 12 thereof is explicit that the contractor, or, specifically, in this case, permit holders or permitees, are entitled not only to the right to [mine], but also to "extract and dispose of mineral ores (found therein) for commercial purposes” without specific limitation as to the nature of the mineral extracted or the quantity thereof.

    Moreover, while Section 13 of the law imposes certain duties and obligations upon the contractor or permitee, nothing therein refers directly or otherwise to production quota limitation.  Additionally, even Section 10 thereof, which provides for the extent [of] the mining area, does not limit production but only the mining area and depth of the tunnel or adit which, as stated in the law shall “not (exceed) that recommended by the (EMB) director taking into account the “quantity of mineral deposits”, among others. It is, however, silent on the extent of the mining’s annual quota production. Thus, anything that is not in the law cannot be interpreted as included in the law x x x14

    Even assuming that the 50,000-MT ore limit in PD 1899 is still in force, the DOJ categorically concluded that the term ‘ore’ should be confined only to Ni-Co, that is, excluding soil and other materials that are of no economic value to the mining corporations.  This is considering that their ECCs explicitly specified ‘50,000 MTs of Ni-Co ore.’

    The mining corporations then filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of DENR in issuing the CDO.  Relying on the rationalizations on the rationalization made by the DOJ in its November 30, 2006 Opinion, they vehemently denied having over-extracted Ni-Co.

    The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for its part, claimed that the CDO was issued for ecological and health reasons and is a preventive measure against disaster arising from multiple acts of over-extraction such as landslides, mudslides and flooding. Also to be respected is the DENR’s finding of the mining corporations’ over-extraction because being the agency mandated to implement the laws affecting the country’s natural resources, the DENR possesses the necessary expertise to come up with such determination.  For the same reason, the DENR's definition of small-scale mining particularly that under Mines Administrative Order (MAO) No. MRD-41 series of 1984,15 must also be sustained.

    Furthermore, the OSG averred that the mining corporations’ concept of how to measure NI-CO ore is flawed as this contradicts Section 2 of MAO No. MRD-41 which confines the 50,000-MT limit to run-of-mine ore, viz.:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    SECTION 2 - Who May Qualify for the Issuance of a Small Scale Mining Permit - Any qualified person as defined in Sec. 1 of these Regulations, preferably claim owners and applicants for or holders of quarry permits and/or licenses may be issued a small scale mining permit provided that their mining operations, whether newly-opened, existing or rehabilitated, involve:

    (a) a single mining unit having an annual production not exceeding 50,0000 metric tons of run-of-mine ore, either an open cast mine working or a subsurface mine working which is driven to such distance as safety conditions and pracatices will allow;

    x x x x

    The OSG emphasized that in measuring an extraction, the only deduction allowed from an extracted mass of ore is the weight of water, not the soil. It quoted a letter16 Horacio C. Ramos of the MGB Central Office dated April 30, 2007 addressed to the OSG, which explained the definition of the phrase “50,000-metric ton extraction limit," to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    • 50,000 metric tons of run-of-mine per year;
    • the run[-]of[-]mine can either be wet or dry;
    • traditionally, the production rate for nickel is based on dry since the water or moisture content has no value; and
    • thus, if the ore is wet, the weight of water is deducted from the total weight of ores in the determination of the production rate, or for shipment purposes.17

    Ruling of the Court of Appeals

    The CA denied the mining corporations’ Petition, not only because the ECCs have been mooted by their expiration, but also due to its recognition of the power of the DENR to issue the CDO as the agency reposed with the duty of managing and conserving the country's resources under Executive Order 192.18  Anent the issue of whether the imposed limit under PD 1899 should be upheld and whether there was over extraction, the CA had this to say:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    We agree with the OSG’s argument that the 50,000[-]metric ton limit pertains to the mined ore in its unprocessed form, including the soil and dirt. The OSG argued that the DOJ Opinion is not binding upon the court and that the agency which is tasked to implement the mining laws is the DENR.  Citing the MGB letter-reply, the OSG contended that the limit provided in RA 1899 subsists and RA 7076 did not impliedly repeal the latter. The provisions in both laws are not inconsistent with each other, both recognizing the DENR’s authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of mining laws.19

    Furthermore, the said court gave credence to the MGB’s April 30, 2007 opinion on the definition of the 50,000-MT limit. Rejecting the claims of the mining corporations, it said:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    x x x Thus, the MAO not only buttresses the OSG’s arguments as to what the extraction limit pertains to, x x x it also contravenes [the mining corporations’] assertion that the extraction limit no longer exists and that, even if the limit subsists, they [had] not exceeded the same because they [had] only extracted around 1,600 metric tons. Indeed, for purposes of determining whether the extraction is still within the allowable limits, only the weight of water is deducted from the run-of-mine ore.20

    The mining corporations moved for partial reconsideration where they again relied heavily on the DOJ Opinion.21 They also attacked the validity of Section 1(1) of PD 1899 that sets the annual production limit of 50,000-MT on small-scale mining by arguing that it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution and that it is already repealed by RA 7076. Even granting that the said limit is still in force, the mining corporations asserted the gangue should not be included in measuring the extraction, since their ECCs clearly provide that 50,000 MTs of Ni-Co ore, not 50,000 MTs of ore, can be extracted.

    Ignoring their arguments, the CA stressed that the DENR is the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country's mineral resources. It reiterated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    This Court likewise declared that the MAO adopted the definition of small scale mining in PD 1899, including the requirement of observing the extraction limit. Together with the MGB's interpretation of the term “run-of-mine ore”, the MAO supports the arguments of the OSG as to the extraction limit and controverts [the mining corporations’] assertion that no extraction limit exists and, if the same subsists, they [had] not exceeded it.22

    Hence, this Petition.

    Issues

    Two questions are posed before us. The first deals with the constitutionality of Section 1, PD 1899 which, according to the mining corporations violates the equal protection clause. They argue that there is no substantial distinction between the miners covered under RA 7076, who can extract as much ore as they can, and those covered under PD 1899 who were imposed an extraction limit.

    Another issue concerns the correct interpretation of the 50,000-MT limit. The mining corporation insist on their version of how to compute the extraction.

    To them, the computation of Ni-Co ore should be confined strictly to Ni-Co component from which they derive economic value.

    Our Ruling

    Petitioners are governed by the annual
    production limit under PD 1899.


    Two different laws governing small-scale mining co-exist: PD 1899 and RA 7076.23 The controversy lies in the apparent conflicting provisions on the definition of small-scale mining under the two laws. Section 1 of PD 1899 defines small-scale mining in this wise:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    Small-scale mining refers to any single unit mining operation having an annual production of not more than 50,000 metric tons of ore and satisfying the following requisites:

    1. The working is artisanal, whether open cast or shallow underground mining, without the use of sophisticated mining equipment;

    2. Minimal investment on infrastructures and processing plant;

    3. Heavy reliance on manual labor; and

    4. Owned, managed or controlled by an individual or entity qualified under existing mining laws, rules and regulations.

    On the other hand, under Section 3(b) of RA 7076, small-scale mining refers to 'mining activities which rely heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining equipment.’ Significantly, this definition does not provide for annual extraction limit unlike in PD 1899.

    DOJ Opinion No. 74, Series of 2006 concluded that as nothing from RA 7076 speaks of an annual production limit, Section 1 of PD 1899 should be considered impliedly repealed by RA 7076, the later law. However, while these two laws tackle the definition of what small-scale mining is, both have different objects upon which the laws shall be applied to.  PD 1899 applies to individuals, partnerships and corporations while RA 7076 applies to cooperatives.24 There are other differences between the two laws, but we cannot hastily conclude that there is an implied repeal because of the omission. Both laws may stand.

    Petitioners then construe the omission of the annual production limit in the later law in the that sense that small-scale miners granted mining contracts under RA 7076 can now conduct mineral extraction as much as they can while the benefit of unlimited extraction is denied to those granted permits under PD 1899.  According to them, such situation creates an invalid classification of small-scale miners under the two laws, hence the attack on Section 1 of PD 1899 as being violative of the equal protection clause.

    We do not, however, subscribe to the mining corporations’ averment that the 50,000-MTs production limit does not apply to small-scale miners under RA 7076.  Recognizing the DENR’s mandate to regulate the country’s natural resources under EO 192,25 both PD 1899 and RA 7076 delegated to the DENR, thru its Secretary, the power to promulgate the necessary IRRs to give effect to the said laws.26cralawred

    Significantly, the DENR in the exercise of such power had just recently resolved the question on the production limit in small-scale mining. On July 5, 2007, it issued DMC 2007-07 or “Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation of the Small-Scale Mining Laws”. By imposing the annual production limit of 50,000 DMT to both SSMPs issued under PD 1899 and Small-Scale Mining Contracts (SSMCs) under RA 7076, the DENR harmonized the two laws, viz:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    V. Maximum Annual Production

    For metallic minerals, the maximum annual production under an SSMP/SSMC shall be 50,000 dry metric tons (DMT[s]) of ore, while for nonmetallic minerals, the maximum annual production shall be 50,000 DMT[s] of the material itself, e.g., 50,000 DMT[s] of limestone, 50,000 DMT[s] of silica, or 50,000 DMT[s] of perlite.

    The maximum annual production above shall include low-grade and/or marginal ore, and/or minerals or rocks that are intended for sampling and/or metallurgical testing purpose/s."

    With the 50,000-MT limit likewise imposed on small-scale miners under RA 7076, the issue raised on the violation of the equal protection clause is moot.  The fact is, the DENR treats all small-scale miners equally as the production limit applies to all of them. There is therefore no more reason for the mining corporations to not recognize and comply with the said limitation.  It must be stressed that the DENR is the government agency tasked with the duty of managing and conserving the country’s resources; it is also the agency vested with the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of mining laws.

    The DENR, being the agency mandated
    to protect the environment and the country's
    natural resources, is authoritative on
    interpreting the 50,000- MT limit.


    MAO No. MRD-41 specifies measuring the ‘run-of-mine ore,’ meaning the ore as it emerges from the mine, i.e., before treatment.27 As explained by the DENR-MGB Director, the ore is weighed only in DMT, excluding the water or moisture content. Simply stated, included in the measurement are other materials lumped with the sought-after mineral.

    This definition is congruent with RA 7942 or The Philippine Mining Act of 1995.  Said law defines “ore” as “naturally occurring substance or material from which a mineral or element can be mined and/or processed for profit.”28  Clearly, the law refers to ore in its unprocessed form, i.e., before the valuable mineral is separate from the ore itself.

    Also in Section V of the earlier mentioned DMC-2007-07, the DENR clarified the 50,000-MT limit by differentiating the measurement of metallic minerals from nonmetallic ones.  Noticeably, the metallic minerals are conservatively measured compared to nonmetallic or industrial minerals for a reason. Compared to metallic minerals, nonmetals are easily available when mined in their raw/natural state, like limestone.  As nonmetallics are produced from natural aggregates, the production limit of 50,000 DMTs will be easily met.  On the other hand, metallic minerals, like Ni-Co are not easily available in their pure form since they are sourced from ores which are mined.  To extract these metals of economic value, the gangue lumped with them have to be removed by metallurgy.  And in order to produce a ton of a metallic mineral sought for, big volumes of gangue will have to be removed.  As indicated by the mining corporations' Summary of Shipments,29 it took 151,612 DMTs of ore to extract only 1,699. DMTs of Ni-Co.  Thus, 149,912.34 DMTs of ore are considered waste.  This means that if we are to subscribe to the mining corporations’ interpretation of how to measure mined ore by measuring only the Ni-Co and excluding the gangue, small-scale miners are virtually given the license to continuously collect large volumes of ore until the 50,000 DMTs of Ni-Co limit is met.  It must be emphasized that mining, whether small or large-scale, raises environmental concerns.  To allow such a scenario will further cause damage to the environment such as erosion and sedimentation, landslides, deforestation, acid rock drainage, etc.30  As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, extracting millions of DMTs of run-of-mine ore will mean irreversible degradation of the natural resources and possible landslides and flashfloods.

    It may be significant to state at this point that while the annual production limit by measuring only the material itself may apply in small-scale nonmetallic mining, the same cannot be true to metal mining for the reasons above stated.  Hence, the DENR saw it proper to conservatively measure the production of metallic minerals apparently bearing in mind the more intense of such kind of mining to the environment.

    Anent the mining corporations’ contention that their ECCs specified that they were allowed to extract 50,000 MTs of Ni-Co, such should not be taken literally in the sense that the measurement should only be based on the Ni-Co in their purest form.  Their that they are to mine Ni-Co and not any other minerals.  This construction likewise applies to the respective SSMPs given them.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The July 4, 2007 Decision and September 14, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97127 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.


    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ. concur.


    Endnotes:


    1 CA rollo, pp. 556-579; penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam and concu Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Sesinando E. Villon.

    2 Id. at 1161-1167.

    3 Entitled "Establishing Small-Scale Mining as a New Dimension in Mineral De took effect on January 23, 1984.

    4 CA rollo, pp. 84-94.

    5Rollo, pp. 94-102.

    6 Letter dated November 7, 2006, id. at 104-105.

    7 Id. at 14.

    8 Id. at 106-107.

    9 Id. at 157-165.

    10 CA rollo, pp. 22-25.

    11 Id. at 24.

    12Rollo, pp. 108-115.

    13 Entitled “People’s Small Scale Mining Act of 1991,” effective July 18, 1991.

    14Rollo, pp. 112-113.

    15 Re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Granting of Small Scale Mining Permits under Presidential Decree No. 1899. Section 1 (1) thereof provides:

    Section 1. Definition of Terms. – As used in this regulations, the following terms shall, unless the context otherwise indicates, have the following meanings:

    x x x x

    (l)  “Small Scale Mining” involves the operation of a single unit mining operation having an annual production not exceeding 50,000 metric tons of run-of-mine ore with the following requisites:

    (1) The working is artisanal, either open cast or shallow underground mining without the use of sophisticated mining equipment;
    (2) Minimal investment on infrastructures and processing plant;
    (3) Heavy reliance on manual labor.

    16Rollo, pp. 251-252.

    17 Id. at 252.

    18 PROVIDING FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, RENAMING IT AS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

    19Rollo, p. 53.

    20 Id. at 54.

    21 Id. at 168-180.

    22 Id. at 67.

    23 Some of the differences between PD 1899 and RA 7076 as may be inferred from the laws and their respective IRRs, i.e., MRD 1984-41 and DAO No. 92-34: Under the PD, small-scale mining permits (SSMPs) are issued, while in the RA, small-scale mining contracts (SSMCs) are granted in the form of co- production, joint venture, or mineral production sharing agreement.  Qualified applicants under the PD are individuals, partnership and corporations, registered with the SEC, at least 60% Filipino-owned, while those under the RA, only Filipino cooperatives organized by licensed and registered small-scale miners may apply. Under RA, mining operations shall only be conducted within the areas declared as Peole's Small Scale Mining Area (PSSMAs), those which are not declared as PSSMAs shall be governed by the PD.

    Furthermore, it must be noted that on July 6, 2012, President Benigno Aquino III signed Executive Order 79, Series of 2012, wherein the EO categorically mandates the small-scale mining operations shall be governed by RA 7076. The IRR of EO 79, DAO No. 2012-07, states that small-scale mining permits issued under PD 1899 shall still be recognized until their expiration.  This means that thereafter, RA 7076 must be complied with.

    24 See note 22.

    25 Relevant provisions of the Executive Order No. 192 provide:

    SECTION 4. Mandate. The Department shall be the primary government agency responsible the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands of the public domains, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.

    x x x x

    SECTION 5. Powers and Functions. To accomplished its mandate, the Department shall have the following functions:

    x x x x

    c) Promulgate rules and regulations in accordance with the law governing the exploration, development, conservation, extraction, disposition, use and such other commercial activities tending to cause the depletion and degradation, of our natural resources.

    26 Provided under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1899 and Sect of Republic Act No. 7076.

    27 Mining Journal Online, Mining 101, http://www.mining-journal.com/knowledge/Mining-101, visited on May 27, 2014.

    28 Chapter 1, Section 3 (ak).

    29Rollo, p. 103.

    30 In the UP Philippine Law Journal article entitled ‘Legal Response Mining’ authored by Antonio GM La Vina, Alaya M. De Leon, and Gregorio   P.  Bueta, see http://plj.upd.edu.ph/legal-responses- to-the-impact-of-mining/, other negative environmental impacts of mining exploration, operation, and ore extraction were mentioned such as disruption or loss of natural habitats, conversion/loss, decline in carbon sequestration capacity, reduced slope stability, diversion of surface or groundwater, reduced or erratic stream flows, clogged stream channels, potential acid rock generation, and contamination of surface waterways.

    G.R. No. 179669, June 04, 2014 - SR METALS, INC., SAN R MINING AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND GALEO EQUIPMENT AND MINING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ANGELO T. REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondent.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED